Zelenskyy did it. Ukraine would no longer exist as a sovereign nation today if he didn't; it would have been entirely annexed into Russia right now.
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
225 points (93.4% liked)
politics
25197 readers
2710 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. In the US right now, only a comedian is capable of getting the joke. It works everywhere else it's been tried. Vote Stewart!
It'd be a better analog if everything else Zelenskyy has done as president wasn't eclipsed by Russia invading. Would he have been considered a good president if that hadn't happened? We'll never know.
He stepped up as a leader when his nation needed him. That is one of the best qualities to have. Anything else is just whatsboutism that can be applied to anyone.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Jon could absolutely destroy anyone on a debate stage. Mainly because it's a popularity contest, and he's spent his entire life learning to be popular on screen and stage. He's also a smart guy with great insight into a lot of situations.
None of that means he would be a good president. It's a different set of skills.
The bottom line though, would he be better than the alternative? And I hear what you're saying. Those nazi crack monkey's put on a hell of a show, how could Jon possibly do a better job? I'm not sure, but given the option, I think I'd give him a shot.
I think the Jon for president thing is copium, but to be fair Jon does have two of the most important traits in a president: conviction and a good bullshit detector. Whether he'd be able to do the day to day work aside, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be able to lead the country in a better direction in a big picture sense.
I mean, there are precedents...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(2015_TV_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy is a Ukrainian politician and former entertainer
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
No.
Don't do this. Let him be. Jon deserves a break, not more work
Read the article. This has come up before and Jon always says no. Here he implies he's considering pretty explicitly. Zelensky has done pretty well for a man who played penis piano on TV.
Hasan’s reflexive response — please, no more reality hosts — came with one notable exception: “Unless Jon, you’re thinking of throwing your hat in the ring… we can talk about that.”
Stewart laughed. He didn’t deny it. He didn’t wave it off. He just leaned back, smiled, and chuckled — the kind of non-answer that fuels speculation.
You’re saying this is Jon Stewart explicitly implying that he’s considering a run?
Yes. I've watched Jon for 20+ years. His answer to that question has always been explicitly, verbally "No." Often followed by a short explanation why. In context this is a huge departure for him.
He took a break during trump's first term. Now, he's up to bat.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How the fuck could he be worse than some cunt politician?
Well....that's what conservatives said about Trump. Not saying John wouldn't be amazing though.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Jon himself is not behind this idea, he constantly reminds people he's just a comedian. We need to stop confusing age, fame, whiteness, and being male with actual experience.
Counterpoint from Douglas Adams:
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
I am 100% in favor of Jon Stewart for president, especially if he refuses to run.
Actual experience is irrelevant to the office of the President.
Being able to listen, learn, and discriminate between lies and truth are what matters.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Don't tease me. I just can't take it.
No. We need to stop fetishizing celebrities.
Jon Stewart has his heart in the right place and even knows where the democrats are really lacking
load more comments
(2 replies)
Are you familiar with Jon? He's qualified. The Rock or Tom Cruise would be poor choices. So would Mark Cuban. But Jon knows government and all the individual assholes that make it up at the top. The only other hope the democrats have is AOC. Bernie and Warren are too old.
Having Jon only excites me in that he could get things done using his popularity. Biden got a lot done, but he used backroom deals and clever policy negotiations. But he's one of the worst communicators of our generation. And his stubbornness may have lead to Trump (no guarantees Trump would have lost, but Biden almost guaranteed he won).
Honestly, I would have been excited to have Biden a second time over Trump, and I don't love him to begin with.
Hell, at this point if Trump dropped dead and we somehow got Romney as president instead of the nut jobs in the maga party, I'd be pretty stoked.
TLDR: I want anyone who can move us back towards okay.
I love John Stewart... but this is a terrible idea.
edit: Based on the responses to this I'm just gonna be thankful I'm not American. You guys apparently have so little clue what is actually involved in civics that you're unironically doubling down on reducing the entire system to a reality tv debacle.
His 911 advocacy is common knowledge. Bringing it up like that automatically makes him the ideal candidate to run the worlds largest economy and military is ludicrous.
Similarly people comparing Zelensky in Ukraine to a potential Jon presidency are comparing apples to coconuts.
Honestly I don't even know why I said anything. Americans slept while their democracy devolved into the world shittiest reality show. Expecting them to see the folly in tripling down on populism was clearly my mistake.
Disagree. Democrats need someone who can make Trump look like a loser
He wouldn't be running against Trump anyway.
One can hope
And if Trump did try to pull a third term, I'd hope the democrats would have the guts to put Obama up again.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
Why? He already has a history of involvement with politics. He got legislature passed to provide support for 9/11 first responders who weren’t getting medical help they needed.
load more comments
(4 replies)
*Jon
No matter who the Democratic nominee is the right will attack him or her in the exact same way, calling them radical communists that want all of our boys turned into girls and all of our murderers to have taxpayer funded penthouses. I just want a candidate who understands the severity of the situation and isn't going to fuck around. Jon Stewart definitely fits the bill.
You can tell it scares the right by how quickly they showed up in this thread. Very funny to see.
I think the biggest determinant of a politician's success is their ability to delegate to the right people, and a big determinant of that is their ability to assess other people and to question them critically. Stewart’s interview skills suggest he wouldn’t be terrible at that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I think it would burn him out. So while I think he'd do a good job, I don't think he'd be the right candidate.
If we have to elect a comedian, I would prefer Colbert. Not least because it would be a really funny twist given that Trump basically bullied the network into firing him because Stephen hurt his fee-fees with his jokes. Plus, the debates would be really spicy.
Plus so many republicans are fans of his not understanding that his work was satire. So he'd get a good bunch of their votes.
I doubt he'll run, if he runs, I doubt he'd get the nomination. But, there are much worse choices. I'd vote for him. I think he'd have a better chance than AOC, because he's an old white man. That's not what people want to hear, but I think it's true.
The fact that anyone still believes there will be anything resembling "fair" elections by 2028 is baffling to me.
The american capacity to stick their head in the sand as long as they have the newest gadget in front of their face and an endless stream of tiktok content to look at is fucking insane.
He should have run in 2016.
So says “allchronology.com” — whatever the fuck that is.
People really think there will be an election in 2028?
view more: next ›